SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 321 - May/30/24

May/30/24 3:58:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I can say to my friend across the way that there are actually more Liberals in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta than there are Conservatives, or Reformers, I should say. After all, in Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Party has a progressive element; it is somewhat small, but it is still there. Even in Alberta, the Reform Party is not the same degree of Reform Party we see here. I can assure the member that in Manitoba, its members are in fact progressive Conservatives. Therefore, I would suggest to members that the far-right reformers, the party that the member across the way is a part of, needs to do a lot more in the Prairies to get that provincial representation of the extreme right. Having said that, 80% of constituents, mine and the member's constituents, will actually benefit from getting more money back on the rebate than they will pay in the tax.

157 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

May/30/24 3:59:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the fuel excise tax is $5.5 billion a year. For three months, it is $1.4 billion. What I would like to know is this. How does my colleague think the Conservative Party would pay for its new federal fossil fuel subsidy? What would it cut?

51 words

Subsidy
Fuel

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/24 4:00:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member brings up a very good point, and I appreciate that. When we look at the gas tax itself, I believe around 40% of that gets funnelled back into municipalities for infrastructure. It is a very important component. We have heard Conservative members talk about getting rid of the tax, and some have even hinted a bit at getting rid of the gas tax in its entirety. If they are looking at doing that, we can think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be lost to the municipalities that receive a portion of that gas tax, which is money that ultimately goes toward infrastructure. I am not sure exactly where Conservatives are on the gas tax, as some have implied that they want to permanently do what they are proposing to do today.

139 words

Infrastructure

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

May/30/24 4:01:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we know that the Liberals ended the greener homes program years early, leaving Canadians, small business owners and contractors worried about the future of the program. It was a highly successful program, but at the same time, we know it was inaccessible for many Canadians. I know there is a campaign right now to have heat pumps for all, to ensure we have safer, cheaper and cleaner energy. To my colleague, is the government going to respond with a new greener homes program? Is it going to bring forward a program so that not only low-income Canadians, but also all Canadians, British Columbians, can access heat pumps, so that we can have safer, cheaper and cleaner energy in our communities, and so that every home can access it?

131 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/24 4:02:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, whether it is heat pumps or home renovations to improve energy efficiency, that is something the government has invested in a great deal in past years, and it will no doubt continue to look at ways we can improve and encourage individuals, through incentives, to continue to make their homes more efficient. The bigger question that needs to be answered by the New Democrats is with respect to their sense of commitment toward a price on pollution that is universally applied to all Canadians. With the rebate component, it provides a great incentive for all of us to be able to—

104 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 4:03:05 p.m.
Watch

I have to allow time for more questions. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

18 words

Mrs. Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)

May/30/24 4:03:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I heard from the member across the way is that this recommendation is not worth the effort, that it is not enough for Canadians and that it is meagre, yet he was fine with giving a significant rebate to people in Atlantic Canada. Here we are with an opportunity to spread that across the country, and he is not willing. We know that in Alberta the gas tax had been lowered, which it does regularly. It is lowered, based on the price of oil, and then it is raised depending on where things are, and the people understand that. The member's side lowered the price of the carbon tax for Atlantic Canada, but it will be going back up three years from now. What will it be for the people in Atlantic Canada three years from now?

141 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/24 4:04:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no. What I was suggesting is that the opposition could do a far better job than trying to mislead Canadians. An example of that would be supporting things that are proposed and that ultimately pass without the support of the Conservative Reform Party across the way, things like dental care, which is helping hundreds of thousands of people, and many are her own constituents. These are issues of affordability. We can talk about pharmacare and seniors who require medication for their diabetes. There are more targeted ways, which are very real and tangible, that we can actually support Canadians. The national food school program is another one. These are substantive ways in which we can actually help Canadians. What Conservatives are proposing is not going to help Canadians at all.

132 words

Supporting

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

May/30/24 4:05:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary referred earlier in his speech to the origins of the B.C. carbon tax. Having been involved, I was amazed to find that a fairly right wing premier in British Columbia, Gordon Campbell, came up with a letter perfect, academically rigorous, revenue-neutral carbon tax, driven, as he was, by the disaster of the loss of the forests of interior B.C. due to climate change. It is a longer story, but this was due to the pine beetle assault because we lost our cold snaps in winter. Just to wrap it up, Gordon Campbell would have been defeated in that election, but the NDP in B.C. ran a campaign against him called “axe the tax”, and because British Columbians supported the carbon tax, he was re-elected.

137 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/24 4:05:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is a sad reality to this whole idea of a price on pollution and just how effective and how positive it could actually be, if the election ads, the electioneering and the politics were put a bit to the side. After all, I think there are 19 Conservative members of Parliament who ran on two occasions with an election platform in favour of a price on pollution. There is a certain progressive element within the Conservative Party, but that has completely evaporated, which is why I suggest that this is more of a Reform Party than it is a Conservative Party.

104 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

May/30/24 4:06:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on the fact that the amounts that are collected through these taxes are returned to the provinces in the form of road maintenance transfers. That money would no longer be available if we were to implement today's motion. Where does my colleague think we could get that money? What impact would that have on the rest of the budget?

70 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

May/30/24 4:07:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are absolutely silent on that. In essence, it would be taken away, so many Canadians would actually have a net loss, in a significant way, because of this particular commitment that the Conservatives are proposing today.

40 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

May/30/24 4:07:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-70

Madam Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order, or usual practice of the House, in relation to the consideration of Bill C-70, An Act respecting countering foreign interference: (a) during the consideration of the bill by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, (i) the committee shall have the first priority for the use of House resources for committee meetings, (ii) the committee shall meet for extended hours on Monday, June 3, Tuesday, June 4, Wednesday, June 5 and Thursday June 6, 2024, to gather evidence from witnesses, (iii) the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs, the officials from the RCMP and CSIS, the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, the officials from the Department of Public Safety, and other expert witnesses deemed relevant by the committee be invited to appear, (iv) all amendments be submitted to the clerk of the committee by 4:00 p.m., on Friday, June 7, 2024, (v) amendments filed by independent members shall be deemed to have been proposed during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, (vi) the committee shall meet at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, June 10, 2024, to consider the bill at clause-by-clause consideration, and if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 6:30 p.m., each party shall be allotted no more than five minutes for each of the remaining amendments and clauses, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill, (vii) a member of the committee may report the bill to the House by depositing it with the Clerk of the House, who shall notify the House leaders of the recognized parties and independent members, and if the House stands adjourned, the report shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House during the previous sitting for the purpose of Standing Order 76.1(1); and (b) the bill shall be ordered for consideration at report stage on Wednesday, June 12, 2024.

358 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

May/30/24 4:09:56 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed. The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

37 words

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC)

May/30/24 4:10:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. Obviously, I am looking forward to hearing his speech. I gave a statement in the House a couple of hours ago about how the citizens of Calgary Midnapore are suffering as a result of nine years of the NDP-Liberal government. I mentioned such tragic things as young adults not being able to have the children they dreamed of having, as a result of economic circumstances. I talked about parents having to pull kids out of organized sports. As a hockey mother, I can say that it is not a cheap endeavour to do organized sports in this day and age. There are also seniors who are so embarrassed. They have contributed so much to this country and now have to rely on food banks, as do over two million Canadians. In my time, I would like to share a few more heartbreaking stories from my riding, explain why this is happening after nine years of the Liberal-NDP government and, finally, suggest a small step or solution the Conservatives are providing for the House to consider. Hopefully, members will vote in favour of it come this Monday. As I indicated, I am hearing tragic story after tragic story out of my riding, and it is no surprise to me considering that Albertans pay an average of $2,943 per year for the carbon tax. I will start with a very sad email from Belinda. Belinda, from my riding, writes: Please help Canadians. My husband works a job downtown and I work we have three teenagers at [a local high school]. We are college educated and can't afford anything besides necessities. I have never written to an mp but feel like our whole community is desperate. Mental health is being affected. We no longer have funds to do anything fun. We have to rip our kids out of sports next year. That is a heartbreaking proposition for a parent, I am sure. “And it's killing me inside”, Belinda writes. “Help us please help it change.” I received another email from Jacob. Jacob, from my riding, writes: I'm reaching out to express the general sense of dread associated with my family's future. We are living in a time where we are experiencing the highest prices on every non-discretionary item on our budget. From the gas pump to the grocery store. From the fear of heating my home to keep my family warm, to buying my son new sneakers— I know all about that. —it seems too much to bear. I am asking that you represent me and my family in Ottawa, a place that seems to have forgotten us Albertans. Please fight to eliminate these unnecessary and ineffective taxes, and to bring common sense back to Canada. Please fight to make Canada affordable again. I also received this email from Ace, who is in the beautiful community of Silverado in my riding: Is the liberal government aware of the housing crisis and the high cost of living that are facing Canadians? With the carbon tax and the high interest rates, we can feel the impact. We are all struggling day in and day out to make ends meet. Where is our prime minister who we thought was cheering for the middle class? I have recently met more and more people who cannot afford housing, rent and groceries. Wasn't this used to be a basic thing to afford if we have a job? As an Uber driver, I hear a lot of stories from all walks of life, good and bad. But lately I have been hearing a lot of sad stories about people who cannot afford the cost of living anymore. I am going to share a few with you. A young lady told me that she was thinking of getting married and having kids, but now it is impossible for her dream to come true as homes and rentals are out of reach. I spoke with an oldish man in his 50's— I hope that is not too old. —who used to live in a nice townhouse in Calgary, but now lives in one room in a shared accommodation because his townhouse rent doubled and he could no longer afford it. Another story, I met a young lady who had moved from BC to Calgary, she told me the rent was so expensive that she had to work as a part time sex worker to pay the bills. Last but not least, I met a lot of young men and women who moved back to their parents' basement because they cannot afford rent. Are higher interest rates helping us to bring down inflation? The fact of the matter is THEY ARE NOT, but all it does is bring down the middle class and make us poorer and poorer. I sometimes wonder whether our government in Ottawa is not aware of the citizens' issues or does not care. I quite frankly do not see any improvement to our lives. Life is getting more and more expensive and poverty is a national epidemic. Who is fighting for us? In a nutshell, the high cost of living is destroying us. We need a proactive government that would do its best to help its fellow citizens. We are drowning in poverty. PLEASE HELP! These are just some of the sad and desperate stories that I have received from my citizens in Calgary Midnapore. When I look at the actions of the government, I see why this is the case. The government is spending out of control and has an absolute obsession with outside consultants and passing on funding to Liberal friends, not to Canadians. We need only look at the most recent supplementary estimates, which I had the opportunity to discuss with the President of the Treasury Board yesterday at the government operations committee. Planned spending in 2023-24 has reached a record $21.6 billion. That is incredible. There is $704 million in proposed spending on professional and special services, and this amount will likely increase with additional spending requests in subsequent supplementary estimates. In 2023-24, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat lapsed, at the end of the fiscal year, $500 million, but it indicated that of the $500 million, $350 million was for professional and special services. Even with the $350 million in consultant savings, the cost for consultants increased by $3 billion. It is not even one-sixth of the $3 billion that was spent by the Liberal government, due to its obsession with consulting, in the year before. Current estimates have the costs at higher than $1.2 billion, but lower than last fiscal year by $1.8 billion. It is highly likely to increase, however. When the President of the Treasury Board was present yesterday at the government operations committee, I pointed out the $39.8-billion deficit currently in existence, in addition to the record amount being spent on consultants, as I had said before, and the additional $1.9 billion in interest in the supplementary estimates, which apparently the Treasury Board president failed to remember during the last round of spending. Who knows how much this amount will be in the future. Another example of this out-of-control spending on consultants is the hiring of the consulting firm KPMG to, ironically, find ways for the government to save money. As for the two contracts for KPMG, one was valued at $325,000 and the second one was valued at $344,650, for a total of $669,650. The problem with the government is clearly that it is not listening to Canadians. The good news is that Conservatives have a plan, through a motion, that will allow families to have a bit of joy this summer: getting rid of the GST on gasoline and diesel, eliminating the carbon tax and the federal fuel tax just until Labour Day. This will save the average Canadian family $670 and 35.6¢ a litre. If the government could kindly give up its obsession with spending and consultants and support our motion, along with the other parties in the House, including its NDP and Bloc coalition members, this would be a gift for Canadians during the summer. I certainly hope all members of this House will consider doing that.

1425 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

May/30/24 4:20:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is interesting. The member is criticizing the government, saying that we are not listening. I am listening to the member, and she is talking about all these needs. We are bringing forward answers to many of those needs, whether through the dental program or the pharmacare program that I referenced. There are so many things we are addressing for the needs, including the disability plan. Then she brings it to an end by saying that we are not listening, and families will benefit by $670. That is just not true. Can she intentionally mislead as blatantly as that? The average Canadian is not going to benefit by $670. That is just wrong. The member cannot substantiate it. Can the member substantiate her statement that average Canadians will benefit by $670? If so, how?

136 words

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

May/30/24 4:21:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the numbers that I just shared substantiate that. There are record levels of debt, record levels of deficit and record amounts being spent on consultants. As I have said time and time again in this House, the government takes and takes with one hand and gives a tiny bit back with the other, tiny scraps of what it takes. The member is just trying to perpetuate a mistruth.

70 words

Deficit
Debt

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

May/30/24 4:21:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to challenge my colleague on something. Throughout her speech, she spoke about the Liberal government's out-of-control spending. I would like to point out to her that the Conservatives are adding a new expenditure of $1.4 billion over three months, which is rather ridiculous. How can she assure us that, if this money is spent, it would go to those who need it most? Usually, it is the more fortunate who spend the most money on gas with their fancy cars.

90 words

Mrs. Stephanie Kusie

May/30/24 4:22:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I know that members of the Bloc Québécois never appreciate what Alberta is doing. Frankly, the natural resources sector has given so much to Canada. I think that is obvious with this question. As an Albertan and a Conservative, I can say that my party and I will continue to work for all of Canada, including Quebec. It is important to understand that everyone across Canada needs all sectors of the economy, including the natural resources sector.

84 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

May/30/24 4:23:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech and I agree that people are suffering in this country. However, the Conservatives seem to put it all on the carbon tax, when as governments, we consistently and consecutively legislate poverty. I want to note a statement from the Ontario Human Rights Commission that talks about poverty. It says that to deal with poverty, we need to recognize the right to an adequate standard of living, help by providing good health care and a universal basic income, and ensure we meet needs related to food insecurity, minimum wage and low-paid work. Why do the Conservatives focus on one thing instead of dealing with the problem in the first place?

120 words